Looking to Engage Your Workforce? Help Them See Progress.

Last summer I hiked through Zion National Park, Utah, with a group of teens.  It didn’t take many miles into the hike for me to realize that they were much younger than I, and with that youth came much greater stamina and flexibility in climbing.
Over a period of four days we hiked and climbed some difficult terrain, and for those of us no longer in our teens, the distance seemed double what it actually was.  However, the breathtaking views and thrill of the journey far outweighed the difficulty in getting there.

In four days, we logged over 35 miles of trail.  At about mile six, I noticed something interesting.  When we trekked into those areas most isolated by majestic canyon walls and heavy forest, although the beauty was certainly apparent, these stretches seemed to go on forever.  We constantly referred to GPS and trial markings to understand where we were in relation to our pre-determined end point.  Other than occasional guesses based on levels of fatigue, it was often difficult to gauge how much trail we had actually covered, as the dense woods masked our sense of distance.

We soon sensed that this lack of positioning was impacting our attitudes toward the hike.  Rather than be mesmerized by the nature surrounding us, we instead seemed to be obsessed with understanding how far we had gone, as well as the distance ahead of us.  We found ourselves making frequent GPS and map check-ins.
Although our GPS behavior bordered on obsessive-compulsive, we found that it provided us with relief—and renewed energy—when we knew where we stood in relation to where we had been and what remained ahead.  When we could see our progress, even though it may not be much, we were excited to continue our journey.  When progress was questionable, our packs appeared to double in weight.  However, once that calibration had been made, we were good for another half-mile stretch.
As if to further solidify this point, several of the boys commented on the fact that when we were able to clearly see the trail below and above us, we progressed much more rapidly.  I believe this more rapid progression to be fact rather than fiction but, even if not, my perception was also that being able to visually note our progress at all times provided that boost we needed on a difficult hike.
Employee Engagement surveys conducted by DecisionWise typically contain the question:
Most days, I feel like I am making progress on important work projects or initiatives.
We find a clear correlation between this question and overall levels of engagement.  This relationship (a clear view of progress and motivation) is explained in depth in the book “The Progress Principle,” written by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer.  As they discuss the impact of discovering progress, they cite the following example from the book “Work Design:”
“If a programmer labors to create some tricky new code and then runs the program through a series of tests, that debugging process gives her immediate and complete knowledge about how much progress she has made on that job.  If she sees that there are just a few glitches, her motivation will surge, as will her joy and her positive perceptions.  But if the testing is decoupled from the programming task, if it is done by someone else, that programmer cannot enjoy an immediate uptick… The key, then, is to design each job so that, in the act of carrying out the work, people gain knowledge about the results of their effort.”
Whether developing code, picking oranges, conducting training, treating patients, or hiking “Angels Landing” in Zion National Park, much of the source of our internal motivation comes from our ability to see progress.
Struggling to engage your workforce?  Help them see progress.

 
Related White Paper: ENGAGEMENT MAGIC®: The Five Keys of Employee Engagement
Related Post: 3 Keys to Helping Employees Understand Their Impact
Related Webinar: Measuring the Business Impact of Employee Engagement

Are Employees Really that Disengaged in Their Jobs?

Man thinking as he looks at tablet

It seems that few days pass without a message in my Inbox containing the subject line, “68% of US workers disengaged in their jobs.”
On those rare days when I’m not flooded with emails along these lines, my newsfeeds, tweets, and subscribed blog notifications more than make up for the lack of “the-employee-engagement-sky-is-falling” bad news.
When press releases like the above headline reach the company level, we create a flurry of activity designed to ensure that we’re not part of the majority, and that our workers all fall within the rare 32% of engaged contributors. Consultants, employee survey companies, the media, and HR teams everywhere latch onto this notion and are quick to justify their positions with dire statistics.
Could this be true? Are the vast majority of workers today really that disengaged in their jobs? If so, we are in for some tough times.
The reality is that most employees are engaged in the workplace.
Inherent in human nature is the desire to succeed, as well as to be engaged in what we do. Although there may be times when our workplace activities don’t fully ignite the fire within, generally speaking, we either move on to activities that do engage us, or move out of the organization.
Think of it logically. Do you really think that 2/3 of all those with whom you associate hate their jobs?
Before I’m water boarded by my fellow HR and consulting friends, I will admit to the fact that some days I would rather be fishing than working. There. I said it. But disengaged? Not by a long shot.
Most of these depressing statistics come from survey or opinion polling firms, and are based on aggregating a series of questions. For example, the question, “I am satisfied with my pay” is looped in with other questions like, “Overall, I am fully engaged in the work that I do each day.” These several dozen (or more) questions are then mixed together to come up with an ‘Engagement Score.” Not a bad practice, but also not one from which we can accurately state, “Two-thirds of employees are disengaged.”
Why? The biggest problem is that we mistake drivers of engagement with indicators of engagement.
Drivers of engagement are those elements that contribute to one’s level of engagement. Things like working conditions, pay, a boss’s feedback, company strategy, etc., are all good examples of drivers. They don’t necessarily indicate how engaged I am, but are often contributors to (or detractors from) my level of engagement. It’s very useful to know how employees respond to questions around these drivers, as they are important contributing factors. But they don’t measure engagement. That’s where indicators come in.
Indicators (also known as “outcomes”) tell us whether one is engaged or disengaged. They are not questions about pay or benefits. They aren’t questions about how my boss communicates with me. They are questions about whether or not I am engaged.
Just to clarify, then, drivers are measures of inputs (factors that often lead to engagement). Indicators are measures of outcomes (how engaged I actually am as a result of some of these drivers).
However, when many doomsayers report “levels of engagement,” they are actually pooling and mixing together a series of questions on drivers mixed with indicators.
When we mix all of these factors together and come out with an “engagement score” we make three fundamental errors:

  1. We assume that these drivers are actually indicators of the level of engagement. Faulty assumption.
  2. We assume that we know what engages everyone. In other words, we assume that every employee in every organization derives satisfaction from the same factors. Wrong again.
  3. We assume that there is a 100% correlation between what the company provides and my level of engagement. If the organization provides all factors (drivers) necessary for my engagement, then I am engaged. Conversely, if one or two are missing, I am not. What we are not considering here is choice. An individual can choose to be engaged or disengaged, regardless of the drivers provided by the organization.

In our study of employee engagement across multiple organizations and continents, we find similar results to those above—most employees respond negatively to questions regarding factors such as pay. After all, are any of us paid what we think we’re worth? However, that doesn’t mean they’re disengaged.
In fact, we find that when we ask questions that truly are indicators of engagement— questions like: “I would like to remain at XYZ Company, even if a similar job were available elsewhere”—the answers indicate a resounding “YES!”
We typically like to ask 6-8 questions on every employee survey that we refer to as “Engagement Anchors.” These are indicator questions that signal whether or not employees are engaged, versus driver questions, which merely act as input into our choice to be engaged in what we do. While drivers are important to understand, as they give us insight into what causes engagement or disengagement within an organization, they are not true indicators of engagement.
Where does this leave us?
When looking at those questions that are indicators of engagement, rather than drivers, we find that only 8% of employees are fully disengaged on their jobs, with another 19% being moderately engaged.
So perk up. We’re not quite ready for the apocalyptic downfall of organizations across the globe. That’s a far cry from claims that “Everyone in the company (except me and HR) is disengaged.
Employee Engagement Survey
Related Post: The Employee Engagement Sky is Falling!
Related Post: How Disengaged Employees Could be Sabotaging Your Company’s Success
Related Webinar: Inside the Mind of a Disengaged Employee
Related Training: ENGAGEMENT MAGIC®
 

Group Brainstorming Pitfalls and 3 Ways to Make it More Effective

Making decisions together as a team

You have been asked by the senior team to come up with ways to increase profitability. Common corporate practice is to gather a group in a brainstorming session to work it out. After all, two heads are better than one, right?
Not so fast.
BRAINSTORMING may not be quite the invaluable instrument in the team toolkit we have been led to believe, particularly if it is not done right.
How effective is brainstorming? According to researchers, not very. In fact, in a Diehl and Strobe meta-analysis of 22 research studies on brainstorming, 18 of these studies demonstrated that people were more effective thinking alone than in groups. Individuals working alone typically came up with more ideas than did the brainstorming groups.
So why do we continue to give brainstorming a prominent place in our team toolkit? First of all, it does have its place, and is certainly not useless. Those of us who have participated in successful brainstorming sessions can relate.
According to Dutch psychologist Bernard Nijstad, there are psychological reasons this practice continues.
First, when working in a team, the pressure to come up with ideas is spread across the group. This takes the weight off the individual to generate all ideas. We get the sense that many ideas have been generated, and therefore we don’t have to work as hard. We feel that because the quantity of thoughts generated by the group exceeds the quantity we might generate as individuals, brainstorming must be better.
In a follow-up Nijstad study, students were asked to work either alone or as a group to identify ways to promote tourism. It was found that students who worked in groups were much more satisfied personally, and were convinced that they had generated better ideas, than those who worked individually. Surprisingly, however, they had fewer ideas than those generated by pooling the thoughts generated by those working as individuals. Yet they felt better.
There are reasons why we might feel better about ourselves when we brainstorm. One of these is “memory confusion,” which is the notion that when working as a group we may confuse ideas generated by the group with ideas generated by ourselves—our own ideas. The belief that these were actually our ideas leaves us feeling better about ourselves and our creative abilities.
Second, the concept of “social comparison” kicks in—we see that the generation of ideas is also difficult for others, and that maybe we aren’t so lacking in creativity as we thought. In other words, we’re not as boring as we had supposed. Instant feel-good.
Brainstorming effectiveness is also complicated by other factors. These include freeloading (letting others take over and keeping thoughts to oneself), apprehension (a fear that one’s ideas are not as good as others’), and blocking.
Blocking involves “waiting ones’ turn.” Even when we might indicate it’s a free-for-all, brainstorming does involve some degree of etiquette. We must wait until someone else has finished expressing a thought before we are able to do so. We also wait for the group’s appointed scribe to accurately record (write on the whiteboard, note on the flipchart, etc.) the idea. In waiting, we halt the ability for the brain to generate new thought, as we can only entertain one idea at a time. By the time we are able to speak, we may have lost valuable thought-generating time. Our ideas may be forgotten before we can interject our insight.
Keep in mind, brainstorming does have some benefits, and is still valuable for teams. Below are three ideas which can help us take advantage of brainstorming as a tool:

  1. Keep brainstorming groups to a maximum of three or four people. Studies have shown that small groups of three or four working together are more effective than the same number of individuals working separately. This changes once the group exceeds four, however, where effectiveness is reduced.
  2. Mix it up a little. A little new blood on a brainstorming team has shown to boost group creativity. Even rotating one person increases group creativity when compared to long-term teams. Diverse teams, including those from other disciplines, also tend to promote more idea generation than those in which groups are more homogenous.
  3. Do some homework. Before pooling ideas in a brainstorming session, team members should do their own individual thinking. Jot some ideas down on paper before discussing as a group.

Throw it out the window? Not yet. Group brainstorming can be very effective. However, keep in mind that two heads are not always better than one.

DRIVE: Why Your Change Effort is Likely to Fail, and What You Can do About It

Car factory production line

Your organization has, once again, embarked on its latest change journey.  And again, the initiative has met its demise.
If there’s one thing every individual and every organization knows well is the fact that a significant number of change efforts crash and burn.  There’s plenty of data to support the fact that your change effort is also likely to fail.  We’ve seen claims and studies indicating that anywhere from one-half to over 90% of personal and organization change efforts fail!
Granted, creating a stir in which organizations see impending failure is a marketing scare tactic that has been the basis for existence for many consulting firms—sort of a “it’s-gonna’-fail-so-you-need-us” approach.  The reality is that many change initiatives truly do work.
Most times, the source of failure does not lie with the model or process, but in the implementation.  In observing countless change efforts, whether undertaken by a single individual (think “exercise regularly”) or by an entire organization (your organization’s last acquisition), we’ve noticed that the ability to change boils down to one word- DRIVE.
While the word “drive” certainly has ties to its dictionary definition, meaning “to push forward, often forcibly” (and many of us rely primarily on brute force in change efforts), I’m referring to more of a specific framework defined by the acronym “DRIVE”:  Dissonance, Reach, Immediate steps, Validation, and Environment.
DRIVE Change Model
Each of the words in the DRIVE acronym is essential for supporting change.  When we look at the difference between successful and failed change efforts, we clearly see that when one or more of the elements in this framework is left out, the change will not occur.  DRIVE is not a step-by-step change model but, rather, a checklist of must-haves.  Miss one, and the change effort falls flat.
We will be describing each of the elements in the DRIVE framework in more depth in our next several blogs on this topic, but here’s a sneak preview…
D- Dissonance: A clear understanding of the current state versus desired state.  Where are we, versus where we want/need to be?
R- Reach: A clear, agreed upon vision of the end goal.  What does the end objective or state look like?  Is it a stretch, but possible?
I- Immediate Steps: Our start- specific steps that can be taken now… today!  What will I/we do specifically, NOW, to start down the right path?
V- Validation: Measurement and assessment of value.  Is it worth it?  How will we measure, assess, and encourage progress?
E- Environment: The combination of conditions and surroundings that support development, survival and the ability to thrive.  What systems and structure will I/we put in place to best ensure success?
Take a look at your latest change effort, whether individual (personal) or organizational.  Chances are, if it hit all the above elements, it succeeded.  If not, it probably went the way of most other change efforts.
Related Webinar: The 5 Keys that DRIVE Organization Change
Previous Posts on DRIVE:
When Faced with Dissonance, Are You a Changer or an Ego-Protector?
Think Small When Tackling a Large Change Effort
Validation- Is the Change Worth the Effort?
Why Environment Is Key to Organizational and Individual Change

Did You Become More Engaged After Your Last Performance Review?


Every year organizations spend untold hours conducting performance reviews. It’s an expensive process in terms of time and money and, if not done right, can have a negative impact on manager and employee engagement and morale.
Think about your own experience. When you’ve been part of a performance review process, either for yourself or for those who report to you, have you experienced the time spent as producing high value? Did you have the unusual experience of walking away feeling understood, appreciated, capable, supported, motivated, and energized? Or, were you with the majority who have walked away feeling misunderstood, unappreciated, surprised (or blind-sided), disenchanted, disheartened, stressed out, or frustrated?
What if the performance review process could actually improve employee morale and productivity? What if the annual event was something everyone looked forward to because it was the time for celebration of accomplishments and preparation for next year’s success?
For people to give their best effort on behalf of their organizations, they need to be fully engaged at work. The annual performance review process could go a long way toward engaging them. In these conversations, with acknowledgement of past contributions and with a focused view of the future, managers and employees can connect their day-to-day work with the organization’s purpose. They can feel a sense of belonging and that others care about them and their development. They can figure out how to get the tools and resources they need to do their jobs right. They can come away feeling respected, invested in, and important.
The performance review cycle is a perfect time to give and receive feedback that will help the individual, manager, and organization improve. If done with an eye to motivating engagement and future performance, the money and time spent will prove worth the investment.
Related Post: How Much Do Performance Reviews Actually Cost and Are They Really Worth It?
Related Post: Performance Reviews Stink
Related Post: 10 Tips for Conducting 360 Degree Performance Reviews
Related Post: 6 Things to Consider Before Using 360 Feedback for Performance Appraisal
Related Post: My Experience Using 360-Degree Feedback for Performance Appraisals
Related Content: 360 Degree Feedback

5 Reasons Why People Dread Feedback (and why we need to hear it anyway)

360 degree feedback

Talk to any group of leaders or managers, and you’ll hear the same thing.  For the most part we dread feedback, and for good reason – our experience is that feedback has been used as a hammer, a club, a spear, or other weapon of destruction.  So, naturally, we respond with defensiveness (fight) or avoidance (flight).


In such a group, you’ll also hear a few individuals speak up who’ve had a different experience with feedback – used more like a mirror than a hammer.  They will tell you that their most valuable feedback has been difficult to hear but has produced outstanding results.  The feedback may have caused them to plan more carefully, communicate more openly, or become more assertive.  They now make better decisions, inspire more commitment from their employees, or take well-reasoned risks that have catapulted their organizations to new performance levels.
At DecisionWise, we specialize in turning feedback into results, and so we have a lot of experience working with leaders and managers to make good use of 360-degree feedback surveys (as well as other data).
Here are five reasons why people dread feedback, and why they need it anyway:
1.       We’re afraid of what we don’t know:
We think of ourselves as self-aware, and it’s disturbing to consider that others may have different perceptions of how we perform and the value we add.  We don’t want to put ourselves in a position of potential embarrassment when we find out about something that’s obvious to others that we totally missed.
We need feedback precisely BECAUSE we don’t know what we don’t know.  We need to find out how we are perceived by others, so we have the option of changing.  With new knowledge, we can choose to start doing things that would make a difference.  We can also choose to change things that would make a difference if they were working better.  And, we can stop doing things that either aren’t making a difference or are getting in the way of achieving our desired results.
2.       We think people will blast us:
We have the impression that most feedback is negative.  We believe that if given an opportunity to be candid AND anonymous, people will rant about whatever annoys them.
While it’s true that some people may jump at the chance to vent, especially if they have pent-up frustrations, they are not the majority.  Most people take feedback opportunities quite seriously.  They tend to give well-considered feedback they believe will be helpful to the individual seeking it as well as to the organization and/or the team.  The real problem is not those who vent; it’s the apathetic or disengaged who don’t respond at all.  Many of these individuals do not want to waste their time giving feedback that won’t matter.  In some cases, people withhold feedback because they fear the consequences of being open with their opinions and perceptions.  Different strategies are required to address each of these challenges, and it is well worth the effort to create an environment where feedback is encouraged and valued.
3.       We’re worried the information will be used against us:
We suspect that HR or management may have a hidden agenda to use anonymous feedback against us – as part of a performance review process or as evidence that we shouldn’t receive the promotion we’ve been working toward.
The far more likely scenario is that negative perceptions, if any exist, are already at work.  The problem is they are not in the open where the individual can address them.  The reality is that when a leader or manager demonstrates openness to receiving feedback and working on issues identified, he or she is almost immediately perceived as a better leader.  So in truth, a healthy feedback process actually promotes positive perceptions of leadership.
4.       We doubt our ability to keep our composure under fire:
We don’t know how surprised we’ll be by the feedback and if we’ll be able to digest it in the moment without becoming overly emotional.  We don’t want to overreact with anger, frustration, insecurity, tears, or any other unprofessional outburst.
Responding appropriately during stressful situations is an important leadership competency, so it’s important to pay attention to when and how feedback is delivered.  I recommend setting up a process that allows the individual to receive and process the data in a supportive environment.  Generally this means receiving a 360 Feedback Report to read through individually, and then approximately 24 hours later, meeting with a third-party coach.  The coach will provide a debrief to help the individual process the data, look for patterns in strengths and areas for development, and create a reasonable yet high-impact action plan.  In this way, any surprises can be dealt with privately, and a personalized follow-up strategy be put in place.
5.       We know that some kind of behavioral change will be expected, and we don’t know if we’ll be able to meet expectations.
We doubt our ability to change specific behaviors of which we were previously unaware or that seem to be just part of who we are.  We may even have heard similar feedback before and made unsuccessful attempts to change.  Hearing the same feedback again and again makes us feel like failures.
This is an important concern.  Participating in a 360 feedback process infers that the individual is open to change and will use the information they receive in a positive, productive way.  In this situation, where individual attempts to change have not worked, a coach can help.  My best coaching experiences have been working with leaders and managers who have had a strong desire to change yet have so far been unsuccessful in making that particular change.  Desire is the key – the tools, tips, and accountability can be learned.
360-Degree Feedback Survey Download
Related Webinar: Creating a Culture of Feedback
Related Post: Making 360 Feedback a Leadership Turning Point
Related Post: 5 Steps for Giving Feedback
Related Content: 360 Degree Feedback